The bill is in direct contradiction of the National Labor Relations Act. It needlessly tilts the playing field in favor of organizing collective bargaining units.

Kurt,

Do unions have the ability to force employees to go to their meetings?

correction:

"Oh I should mention: My firm gets paid by the Oregon AFL-CIO, but I speak only for myself while I advocate for those who pay me".

“The bill is in direct contradiction of the National Labor Relations Act. It needlessly tilts the playing field in favor of organizing collective bargaining units.”

You’re joking, right? I mean, you believe that a business ought to be able, as a condition of employment, require its workers to attend “meetings” and sit through anti-union propaganda?

Perhaps we could put an end to unions altogether with just a little water boarding, eh?

Kurt--

You are wasting your efforts. Aren't you aware that the only permitted forcible political indoctrination allowed in Oregon is that performed upon children by the apparatchiks of the Oregon Education Association?

Holy crap Murphy, You do realize your boy in the Whitehouse is in favor of public union voting right? WTF? two faced or what?

dddave, are you conflating two different issues?

This bill is about forced meetings at work. It is not about card check.

There's a world of difference between a coerced political meeting and a coerced union vote.

This bill is likely unconstitutional as well. But now we see in 2009, having come out solidly against free and fair elections, unions are also opposed to free speech.

The talk about elections and religion is the red herring to justify a gag rule that would give the unions trying to organize even more of an advantage than they already have.

The corruption remains, only the party and beneficiaries have changed............

fbear, murphy and others. Jeff has a very good response. I don't agree with all of it, but much is correct in that both labor and managment will look at the same set of data and arrive at different conclusions.

I am a FIRM believer in the unfettered right of workers to choose an exclusive bargaining representative and would never take that right away. I've worked in both union and non-union environments and have seen both good and bad in both. My uncle, father-in-law and two brothers-in-law were proud union members.

That said, the NLRA as written into law already tilts the process in labor's favor:

Unions can meet with employees at any time away from work even before the petiion for representation is presented. The company can not have any meetings prior to the petition for representation and can not go to employees' homes or send material to them during the election campaign.

Unions can hand out material in the parking lot and during recognized breaks and lunch. The company can not.

The COmpany must even give a list of current address, phone numbers and contact information for all employees in the proposed bargaining unit to the union during the campaign regardless the employee request for confidentiality.

As Jeff says so well, reasonable people can see the same set of data and come to different conclusions. I have found in almost 30 years of doing this that the ONLY avenue open to the company under the NLRA is a mandatory set of meetings (on paid time) in order to get their message out without running afoul of the NLRA and getting a ULP charge.

I respect Jeff's opinion, however his statement, "For decades, labor had a sterling reputation," is not without question. Certainly even the most unbiased observer would look at the rip-off of Great Lakes Pension and Benefits Trust funds from the Teamsters so that Las Vegas could be built is one such example of how corrupt the Teamsters corruption nationally and in many locals went unabated. I have personal knowledge of union strong arm tactics by OCAW, Teamsters, USW, UMW and UFCW to name a few.

Certainly company abuses by various thugs over the years like Ford, Pinkerton, Pullman, Phelps Dodge and others led to corresponding violence by certain AFL-CIO groups. Neither side was right to resort to violence and we can be hopeful that we are now in an era where reasonable folks can disagree about union representation without becoming disagreeable themselves.

Kurt,

The difference between what the unions can do and what companies can do is the mandatory aspect. If a union organizer comes to someone's home, the employee can slam the door in the organizer's face if they want.

But with mandatory meetings, the employer is forcing the employee to listen to them.

Also, you're ignoring the aspect of employers who hold mandatory meetings to force political or religious views on them. That just has no place in the workplace unless the organization is specifically political or religious in nature.

Kari, I respectfully suggest that you study up on teamsters both under Hoffa, Fitzsimmons and others. The problems and corruption extended WELL into the 1980's at least. Then check out the UMW under Trumka. Welcome to reality and embrace it dude.

Jeff, I agree that unions are being viewed in a far better light. They also can not be in any way blamed for the problems with our current economy on either the national or state levels. We would probably disagree on how much unions, especially public employee unions are hindering getting out of this economic mess. But that's OK.

fbear, We defintely agree that employers should NEVER have the ability to hold mandatory meetings in order to prosletyze regarding religious or political views. Actually under the Freedom of Religion Regulations, employers can not push their religious views in this manner already. Regarding mandatory meetings by the employer during a representation campaign. The employer is paying the employee, so what is wrong with a mandatory meeting for the employer to explain thie views? As long as there are no violations of the NLRA, what would the union or the organizing committee have to fear?

Kurt,

Do you believe that those mandatory meetings are places where true give-and-take can take place? Or, perhaps, places where employees may risk their jobs if they say the wrong thing.

I suppose it all depends on whether you believe that employers own the employees while they are at work. I don't believe that they do. Perhaps you do.

" The owners had their shot and they nearly bankrupted the country"

Jeff,

That statement is laughable! What national bankruptcy are you speaking of?

The closest argument in your favor is the near implosion in the banking industry. This is one of many industries in this country. At the heart of the banking problems are bad loans. Who took out the bad loans? Corporations? NO, NO, NO!!!

People took out the loans. The spiral is rooted in individuals not able to pay off mortgages they willingly signed. Banks deserve the pain they've had as they used horrible underwriting standards, knowing they could (and were encouraged) to sell these loans to Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac(FRE). FNM and FRE are long-time quasi obligations of the US Gov't, with Barney Frank sitting in the oversight position.

You could make a much more solvent argument that had the US Gov't not propped up FNM and FRE to buy dubious loans, such loans would not have originated as the banks would not want to hold them. Instead, too many bad loans were originated with led to oversupplies of housing and a general drop in real estate prices that have impacted all home prices in a negative way, and impacted the balance sheets of nearly every financial company and pension holding such assets.

fbear, some good thoughts and questions. I guess that the amount of give and take as well as real opinion sharing that could go on in these meetings is directly proportionate to the openess of the employer and the willingness of both parties to remain civil. Certainly, the fact that you are already at the level of a representation campaign after card check and the petition for representation, shows that there are issues present. I'm certain that in some companies the meetings could be very open to debate and then in others employees would be in fear of their jobs (but then we run up against that pesky ULP charge section in the NLRA again ;->)

I do not believe that the employer owns the employee while at work. While the employer is responsible for common breaks, pay, working conditions and safety; those requirements do not confer owwnership. However, while at work and being paid, the employer does have the right to direct the activities of the employees. Directing a paid employee to a mandatory meeting in order to discuss some sides of unionization that more than likly are not fully presented by the petitioning union is reasonable in my opinion. Directing paid employees to a mandatory meeting in order to threaten and brow beat them is not reasonable, again in my opinion.

You can be sure that our national disgrace, our unemployment rate, are the wrath of God almighty, for taking God out of the workplace. You atheists talk about liberal Europe. In France and Germany, it is commonly, and legally, asked during an interview, "what religion are you, how often do you attend services, and what are your views on the afterlife". This is not supporting workers, it is bashing religion.

The cop on the beat and the soldier in the field use faith to make their decisions. So do employers, in their hearts. Confess and reform and you might find a lot more job openings. Not divine intervention, but the real social filter that the good boy network uses. Drip, drip, drip, it all eats away. You will not win. We have all the "little people" and we have God.

Oh, and we have 2 million trained soldiers, 80% persons of faith, trained on your tax dollars to kill and torture Godless heathens. How long after they're back that it will not matter is those are Islamist heathens or atheist heathens in the gun site? Surprise! It's already started. We have the media as well. For five years returning heroes have been, well, shooting up everything. The media has not said one word, has spun the little that comes out as being a one off, and the whole time we're adding notches.

I got a laugh at an essay that my son wrote in the 1970s. He went through a childish liberal period, and dreamed about a President, from Chicago, that reminded all of MLK, Jr. In his essay, he made his first debating appearance, against a evangelical candidate, at a Rainbow Family gathering. He grew up, but you haven't. He got it pretty correct, except that the "liberal" wasn't at a Rainbow Family gathering, he was at a televangelist's church! Ad. time! Evangelical Christianity was left, middle and right. There was nothing else, not one iota in that first, joint appearance, that said that there is anything serious in this country but evangelical christianity.

No sweat. Churches can ignore this with their employees, just like they do all health, safety, and tax laws right now. You don't have a say, so, how about you shush it already?

In 1978 at the U.S. Senate needed one vote to pass the Labor Reform Act (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945985,00.html ) and 13 Republicans voted for it. That vote included Oregon's Republican Senators Hatfield and Packwood they were right then and it is right now.

This bill is being coined by some in the business community as an "employer censorship bill". That is not the case, when a Union education or captive audience meeting is called by an employer during or before an organizing campaign, it simply makes it voluntary for the employee to attend. No discipline for employees who state they do not want to attend. If an employee has truly made up their mind on Unions, either for or against, what is the point of forcing more meetings. One, two, or four hour meetings every week seem to be overkill for those who have decided. What kind of democratic election in the known world allows this type of advantage or intimidation, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan, North Korea?

The power to take someones livelihood if they disagree with your free speech does not translate to free speech. Not free at all.

Alternatively, should Unions be allowed to force employees with the threat of discipline to attend there meetings? Probably wouldn't be acceptable. That is why they are voluntary.

Maybe House republicans will surprise us and support putting Oregon in a more democratic place. The Hatfield and Packwood of 1978 would've...

If I am paying someone to go to a meeting they damn well better be there. It's freedom of speech. The more bills they pass like this the more freedoms they are taking away from the American people. Pretty soon they will pass a bill saying I can only wipe my ass with my left hand. People have minds and if someone is paying them to listen to their opinions then they can make a judgment call if what they are hearing is important to them or not. If the employees are not getting paid now that is a different story.